Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,783
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:39:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Apr 20, 2016 1:14:39 GMT -5
Meh, he's done. Americans were never going to elect a socialist. The exit poll in New York said different. The prefer Sanders. They just don't think he can beat Trump. It's two extremes going against each other. You're alienating the moderates/centrists. Moral of the story: this is the year where a 3rd party candidate could have made the biggest impact since Ross Perot in 1992. Still can, really. You just need to find the right billionaire.
|
|
Justin
Script Supervisor
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 739
Likes: 355
Location:
Last Online Oct 17, 2017 12:05:25 GMT -5
|
Post by Justin on Apr 20, 2016 9:17:58 GMT -5
I think Dooms is right in that Americans still see the word "socialist" as a dirty, dangerous word. I'm amazed that he's made it this far honestly.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 7:05:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Apr 20, 2016 10:14:33 GMT -5
I think Dooms is right in that Americans still see the word "socialist" as a dirty, dangerous word. I'm amazed that he's made it this far honestly. He's doing a good job of making it known that there's a base out there that's hungry for more aggressively liberal candidates but that doesn't mean he should actually be the candidate this year.
|
|
Justin
Script Supervisor
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 739
Likes: 355
Location:
Last Online Oct 17, 2017 12:05:25 GMT -5
|
Post by Justin on Apr 20, 2016 10:45:22 GMT -5
Indeed. But the problem right now, as I see it, are the Bernie Bros. Many are pledging not to vote if he doesn't win the nomination. This could be really short-sighted and stupid.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 7:05:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Apr 20, 2016 16:49:59 GMT -5
Indeed. But the problem right now, as I see it, are the Bernie Bros. Many are pledging not to vote if he doesn't win the nomination. This could be really short-sighted and stupid. I strongly suspect that that's just momentary hyperbole. There was a similar movement of Clinton supporters who said they would never support Obama. The were calling themselves PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass). Lasted about a week, then they calmed down and saw the light.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,303
Likes: 6,769
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 1:15:09 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Apr 20, 2016 16:58:06 GMT -5
And they'll snap back into shape once they realize that the alternative is Trump.
|
|
Justin
Script Supervisor
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 739
Likes: 355
Location:
Last Online Oct 17, 2017 12:05:25 GMT -5
|
Post by Justin on Apr 20, 2016 17:05:08 GMT -5
Indeed. But the problem right now, as I see it, are the Bernie Bros. Many are pledging not to vote if he doesn't win the nomination. This could be really short-sighted and stupid. I strongly suspect that that's just momentary hyperbole. There was a similar movement of Clinton supporters who said they would never support Obama. The were calling themselves PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass). Lasted about a week, then they calmed down and saw the light. That is hopefully true. But I have unfortunately encountered people who are seriously against the "establishment". So if it's not Bernie, it'll be Trump. They just want an outsider.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,783
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:39:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Apr 21, 2016 7:04:13 GMT -5
I strongly suspect that that's just momentary hyperbole. There was a similar movement of Clinton supporters who said they would never support Obama. The were calling themselves PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass). Lasted about a week, then they calmed down and saw the light. That is hopefully true. But I have unfortunately encountered people who are seriously against the "establishment". So if it's not Bernie, it'll be Trump. They just want an outsider. You know what's ironic? These are the same people who hate Andrew Jackson and are glad that he's being replaced on the front of the $20 bill by Harriet Tubman. I have nothing against Tubman being on money, but the celebration of Jackson's demise makes me wonder if most people should have stayed awake in history class. The Trail of Tears is nothing to be proud of and Jackson should be criticized for it, but there's a reason why in spite of that he's generally considered one of our best President 's. Jackson was our first outsider. He was the one who championed the common man and made the government less elitist - or at least tried to. The people who supported Jackson in the 1820's are the same who would support Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump today.
|
|
Ramplate
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Apr 2005
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hamster
Posts: 30,425
Likes: 493
Location:
Last Online Oct 13, 2020 13:56:48 GMT -5
|
Post by Ramplate on Apr 21, 2016 8:08:23 GMT -5
Jackson actually cleared the national debt by the time he left office too - last time we had a positive balance. Personally there was a lot wrong with his,and most people's attitudes about race and action s there of, but yeah he was ultimately a good leader.
I don't mind Tubman being on the bill, she risked life and limb over and over for a great cause. That's a hero to look up to.
As far as Sanders goes, there's still California and some other big prizes who might go for some really liberal changes. He is at least going to get some great impact on the next administration.
I have heard some people who said they would write him in if Clinton was the candidate, but I reminded them that that would divide the vote, and we don't want Trump to win because of that.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 7:05:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Apr 21, 2016 9:53:20 GMT -5
Jackson actually cleared the national debt by the time he left office too - last time we had a positive balance. Bill Clinton would beg to differ...
|
|
Ramplate
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Apr 2005
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hamster
Posts: 30,425
Likes: 493
Location:
Last Online Oct 13, 2020 13:56:48 GMT -5
|
Post by Ramplate on Apr 21, 2016 11:55:59 GMT -5
Jackson actually cleared the national debt by the time he left office too - last time we had a positive balance. Bill Clinton would beg to differ... You're talking about deficit I'm talking about debt True we spent less than we took in during the Clinton administration, but we were still roughly $200 billion in debt On January 8, 1835 under Jackson the debt was effectively $0.00
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,783
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:39:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Apr 21, 2016 12:01:14 GMT -5
Dracula RamplateJackson was the first President to pay off the national debt but there was still a recession cause of issues in Europe. Some have argued that without Jackson we might not have survived the early days cause we would have been broke. In addition to the recession, we had to fight Spain to get Florida and had to threaten South Carolina because they wanted to leave the union. Jackson was also the first President to launch an investigation into political corruption, something that would be VERY popular today. And he was also in favor of term limits. Like George Washington, he felt that no one should be in power for too long. That would also make him popular with today's voters.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 7:05:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Apr 21, 2016 18:22:57 GMT -5
Dracula Ramplate Jackson was the first President to pay off the national debt but there was still a recession cause of issues in Europe. Some have argued that without Jackson we might not have survived the early days cause we would have been broke. In addition to the recession, we had to fight Spain to get Florida and had to threaten South Carolina because they wanted to leave the union. Jackson was also the first President to launch an investigation into political corruption, something that would be VERY popular today. And he was also in favor of term limits. Like George Washington, he felt that no one should be in power for too long. That would also make him popular with today's voters. And Hitler made the trains run on time...
|
|
Justin
Script Supervisor
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 739
Likes: 355
Location:
Last Online Oct 17, 2017 12:05:25 GMT -5
|
Post by Justin on Apr 21, 2016 18:44:54 GMT -5
True, Jackson did a lot of good for our country. But honestly, I'd rather have the Native-American community still be intact and not a series of dilapidated reservations. You can probably ask any Native-American and they'll just tell you that he was a bastard who helped steal their land. Dracula is right: Hitler did a lot of good for the economy, but at what cost?
|
|
Jibbs
Administrator
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 75,725
Likes: 1,657
Location:
Last Online Feb 20, 2024 18:06:23 GMT -5
|
Post by Jibbs on Apr 21, 2016 19:27:10 GMT -5
Dracula Ramplate Jackson was the first President to pay off the national debt but there was still a recession cause of issues in Europe. Some have argued that without Jackson we might not have survived the early days cause we would have been broke. In addition to the recession, we had to fight Spain to get Florida and had to threaten South Carolina because they wanted to leave the union. Jackson was also the first President to launch an investigation into political corruption, something that would be VERY popular today. And he was also in favor of term limits. Like George Washington, he felt that no one should be in power for too long. That would also make him popular with today's voters. And Hitler made the trains run on time... I thought Mussolini did that.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,783
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:39:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Apr 21, 2016 20:37:32 GMT -5
True, Jackson did a lot of good for our country. But honestly, I'd rather have the Native-American community still be intact and not a series of dilapidated reservations. You can probably ask any Native-American and they'll just tell you that he was a bastard who helped steal their land. Dracula is right: Hitler did a lot of good for the economy, but at what cost? Can you really be good for the economy if you launched World War II and pissed off the Russians so much that they joined forces with their enemy just to kick your ass?
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 7:05:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Apr 21, 2016 20:45:30 GMT -5
And Hitler made the trains run on time... I thought Mussolini did that. They both did... metaphorically. Admitedly Mussolini did it a bit more literally... by violently crushing a railroad workers' strike.
|
|
Ramplate
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Apr 2005
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA Hamster
Posts: 30,425
Likes: 493
Location:
Last Online Oct 13, 2020 13:56:48 GMT -5
|
Post by Ramplate on Apr 21, 2016 20:55:55 GMT -5
True, Jackson did a lot of good for our country. But honestly, I'd rather have the Native-American community still be intact and not a series of dilapidated reservations. You can probably ask any Native-American and they'll just tell you that he was a bastard who helped steal their land. Dracula is right: Hitler did a lot of good for the economy, but at what cost? Can you really be good for the economy if you launched World War II and pissed off the Russians so much that they joined forces with their enemy just to kick your ass? Yes opening another front was his big downfall, but exporting your aggression does boost the economy, and help stop unrest at home - that was a good move on his point. He should have stopped at Poland, or at least taken a breather - no one was really attacking him up until then.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,783
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:39:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Apr 21, 2016 21:02:57 GMT -5
Can you really be good for the economy if you launched World War II and pissed off the Russians so much that they joined forces with their enemy just to kick your ass? Yes opening another front was his big downfall, but exporting your aggression does boost the economy, and help stop unrest at home - that was a good move on his point. He should have stopped at Poland, or at least taken a breather - no one was really attacking him up until then. Hitler was power hungry. Jackson wasn't at all. He hated people who abused their position. That's why he made so many enemies. All the corrupt politicians were against him. It's actually no different than now with Congress constantly creating road blocks for Obama. The difference is that Jackson was alive in a time when the President could beat people up. The guy had a duel cause someone called someone's wife a slut.
|
|
Wyldstaar
Producer
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,900
Likes: 1,267
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:02:57 GMT -5
|
Post by Wyldstaar on Apr 21, 2016 21:19:31 GMT -5
The Iroquois refer to George Washington as The Town Destroyer. The title originally belonged to his great-grandfather John Washington, but when George ordered the destruction of about 40 Iroquois settlements during the American Revolution, they transferred the title to him.
It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue (or money) made of 'em was one kinda sombitch or another.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,783
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:39:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Apr 23, 2016 13:05:55 GMT -5
According to the New York Times, Hillary Clinton is so confident about getting the nomination that she has already began searching for a running mate. The candidates: Sherrod Brown, Ohio Senator Julian Castro, former Mayor of San Antonio, Texas Tim Kaine, Virginia Senator Amy Klobucher, Minnesota Senator Deval Patrick, former Governor of Massachusetts Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor Mark Warner, Virginia Secretary Elizabeth Warren, thebtskink 's arch nemesis I'm 75% sure it'll be Warren. A year ago, she was low-key running for President and then stops all of a sudden. And every time someone asks her to endorse Sanders or Clinton, she dodges the question. The only way she won't be chosen is if the campaign feels that two women running for the White House is gonna alienate people.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 7:05:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Apr 23, 2016 13:59:59 GMT -5
According to the New York Times, Hillary Clinton is so confident about getting the nomination that she has already began searching for a running mate. The candidates: Sherrod Brown, Ohio Senator Julian Castro, former Mayor of San Antonio, Texas Tim Kaine, Virginia Senator Amy Klobucher, Minnesota Senator Deval Patrick, former Governor of Massachusetts Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor Mark Warner, Virginia Secretary Elizabeth Warren, thebtskink 's arch nemesis I'm 75% sure it'll be Warren. A year ago, she was low-key running for President and then stops all of a sudden. And every time someone asks her to endorse Sanders or Clinton, she dodges the question. The only way she won't be chosen is if the campaign feels that two women running for the White House is gonna alienate people. Warren makes sense if she desperately needs to win back Sanders voters, but I suspect most of them are going to calm down and play ball (and there's probably no winning back the ones who won't) She probably has the woman vote tied up so Klobucher is probably off the list. If she's running against Trump she probably doesn't need to worry about the latino vote, so cross off Castro and Perez. The black vote is probably more tenuous, at least in terms of turnout so Deval Patrick makes sense, although she may prefer a Senator over a Governor so that once in office they would be better able to broker deals and whatnot. In that even Sherrod Brown makes sense in that he could help deliver Ohio and Tim Kaine could help shore up white working class voters... although they could well be out of reach at this point.
|
|
thebtskink
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jul 2000
It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.
Posts: 19,462
Likes: 4,984
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 18:41:41 GMT -5
|
Post by thebtskink on Apr 23, 2016 14:06:54 GMT -5
Julian Castro looks like a goddamn alien.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,783
Likes: 8,648
Location:
Last Online Nov 24, 2024 23:39:06 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Apr 23, 2016 14:45:26 GMT -5
According to the New York Times, Hillary Clinton is so confident about getting the nomination that she has already began searching for a running mate. The candidates: Sherrod Brown, Ohio Senator Julian Castro, former Mayor of San Antonio, Texas Tim Kaine, Virginia Senator Amy Klobucher, Minnesota Senator Deval Patrick, former Governor of Massachusetts Thomas E. Perez, Secretary of Labor Mark Warner, Virginia Secretary Elizabeth Warren, thebtskink 's arch nemesis I'm 75% sure it'll be Warren. A year ago, she was low-key running for President and then stops all of a sudden. And every time someone asks her to endorse Sanders or Clinton, she dodges the question. The only way she won't be chosen is if the campaign feels that two women running for the White House is gonna alienate people. Warren makes sense if she desperately needs to win back Sanders voters, but I suspect most of them are going to calm down and play ball (and there's probably no winning back the ones who won't) She probably has the woman vote tied up so Klobucher is probably off the list. If she's running against Trump she probably doesn't need to worry about the latino vote, so cross off Castro and Perez. The black vote is probably more tenuous, at least in terms of turnout so Deval Patrick makes sense, although she may prefer a Senator over a Governor so that once in office they would be better able to broker deals and whatnot. In that even Sherrod Brown makes sense in that he could help deliver Ohio and Tim Kaine could help shore up white working class voters... although they could well be out of reach at this point. Sherrod Brown is off the list because if he leaves the Senate, a Republican will replace him. The democrats don't want that. Julian Castro and Thomas Perez are the go-to guys if Ted Cruz gets the nomination - which won't happen unless the Republicans pull super delegates out of their ass and deny Trump the nomination. Tom Kaine is considered "too boring". This is Trump's election, whether democrats want to admit it or not. The media is always gonna cover all Trump and push Clinton off the spotlight. Mark Warner is too rich. It'll turn off the Sanders base. So it'll come down to Elizabeth Warren, Deval Patrick and Amy Klobucher. Basically the Sanders vote, the Black vote and the girl-power vote. I still give Warren the edge cause she's been playing ball. She could have easily run for President and fucked up Clinton. Sanders only came to the scene when Warren stepped away and he's been a bigger challenger than expected. So if the less radical Warren had run, she would have gotten the nomination for sure. Clinton owes her. Deval Patrick is definitely the safe choice since he's the Black vote that Clinton needs. I'm not saying that Black people don't support Clinton. But the turnout won't be as big as Obama. Having a Black guy on the ballot will definitely help. Amy Klobucher is the Joe Biden for Clinton. She's laid back and has a sense of humor. That could be useful for Clinton since she's considered super stiff and will struggle to steal media attention from Trump.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,105
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 7:05:10 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Apr 23, 2016 14:59:04 GMT -5
Tom Kaine is considered "too boring". This is Trump's election, whether democrats want to admit it or not. The media is always gonna cover all Trump and push Clinton off the spotlight. Fair point, but the last time a candidate started thinking like that we ended up with Sarah Palin...
|
|